SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1922 Supreme(Cal) 159

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Newbould, J.
Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury - Appellant
Versus
Sheikh Somar Ali - Respondent
Decided On : 15-03-1922

The principle of res judicata and the interpretation of previous court decisions in establishing the rent amount for the years in question.

Headnote:

Rent Suit - Dispute over amount of rent payable - Interpretation of previous court decisions and application of res judicata principle

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arises from a rent suit with the only question in dispute being the amount of rent payable. The plaintiff relies on a decision in a case u/s 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, while the defendant relies on a decision in a previous rent suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the judgments from the previous cases and concluded that the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights had been rebutted, supporting the finding that the rent amount was as found in the previous suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues: Dispute over the interpretation of previous court decisions, application of res judicata principle, and rebuttal of presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the previous decree may not have finally decided the rate of rent between the parties, it did establish the rent amount for the years for which the previous suit was brought, thus rebutting the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Newbould, J. - This appeal arises out of a rent suit and the only question in dispute is the amount of rent payable. The plaintiff relies on a decision in a case u/s 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant relies on a decision in a suit for rent for the years previous to those for which rent is claimed in the present suit.

2. The appellant has taken back from the file of the lower Court the judgment delivered in Section 105 case, Consequently I have before me only the statement by the lower Court of the purport of that judgment. From that it appears that in that case the only point which the Revenue Officer had to consider was what additional rent was to be allowed for the exce(sic)s area. If that was the only point decided it is of no help to the appellant that the rant of the original area was recorded at the conclusion of that case at the same amount as it had been recorded in the kh tian. The lower Courts have held that the presumption arising from the entry in the khatian was rebutted by the decree in the previous rent suit in which the rate of rent was held to be that admitted by the defendant. It is contended that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the decree operated as res judicata. It may not be res judicata in the tense that it finally decided the rate of rent between the parties. But it is ret judicata that for the years for which that suit was brought the rent was the amount then found. That decision is sufficient to support the finding that the presumption arising from the entry in the Record of Rights has been rebutted.

3. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top